If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There's one problem no amount of money can solve: for most Open Source developers Linux is a playground, a thing they don't care beyond their aspirations, thus we have constantly broken features and API breakage every odd moon cycle. With such an attitude there's no way Linux will ever attract a big number of serious ISVs. Of course, people will be quick to point that already available Open Source software is enough for everyone - but that's a serious myopia. No, it's not enough, very very far from that.

Comment

I don't understand why for example archlinux already installs three different ciphering libraries, libssl, libgcrypt and another one I forgot if you don't even install a user interface. Of course they don't exactly do the same, but it should be possible to reduce code which was implemented two times (f.e. the des algorithms) and install only one library...

Another thing I always wonder about is why every linux distribution installs libgtk2.32 even so the user interface is the gnome-shell which is based on libgtk 3.0. It can't be that difficult to port the few tiny tools to gtk3? (isn't libreoffice now ported to gtk3?)

And the last thing I won't to mention is that it doesn't make sense that every linux distribution uses their own thousands of scripts. F.e. in the case of the start-up scripts the distributions could use systemd and write good scripts only once and use the same ones in ubuntu/lfs/gentoo/arch...? In the end they all do exactly the same job and this would reduce a lot of work.

Just my 2 cents...

nice regards
Michael

Comment

"Linux" as a kernel, is very good I think. Central concepts such as multitasking and scheduling are working very well now. Low latency operation really sets the feel of the entire operating system, and I do believe a modern OS, can be combined with the feel of vintage assemblycoded hardware.

Distibution-wise it needs to become even more professional. Less obscurity, more professionality. Meaning, no strange error msgs, no unesscesary obfuscation, no strange rules etc. You should boot it up, and expect a well-working system for professionals, without geekery.

Other than that, Doom 3 is playing like a vintage asm-coded arcade here. Gnome 2 was also working very well to my tastes. Could be that these people come up with something even better ofcourse. Else LXDE, or maybe Enlightenment might be good alternatives.

If Ubuntu tightens up their act somewhat, maybe Mark stops discussing "lust" on his webpage, and related corporate philosophy, it could be good.

Comment

Another thing I always wonder about is why every linux distribution installs libgtk2.32 even so the user interface is the gnome-shell which is based on libgtk 3.0. It can't be that difficult to port the few tiny tools to gtk3? (isn't libreoffice now ported to gtk3?)l

You mean such tiny tools like GIMP?

And the last thing I won't to mention is that it doesn't make sense that every linux distribution uses their own thousands of scripts. F.e. in the case of the start-up scripts the distributions could use systemd and write good scripts only once and use the same ones in ubuntu/lfs/gentoo/arch...? In the end they all do exactly the same job and this would reduce a lot of work.

Isn't that why there are different distributions in the first place? Because not every one wants to use the same stuff? I hope that things like systemd or pulse-audio never are standard for my distribution, but this may be different for other people.

For me the biggest problem of Linux is being a second class citizen for almost any hardware manufacturer when using Linux.

Comment

The biggest problem with Linux is probably the API and ABI changing almost every day and new features and software expecting that new API/ABI. MS invests a lot of time and money on maintaining a stable API and ABI , only breaking it on rare occasions. I'm a maintainer for a small Linux distribution, Frugalware and I see the problems we are face with every day ... You need to use a new version of libX but using a new version of libX will break progY while progZ still needs it. Also the new version of libX will expose a bug in progZ and so on...
Red Hat tried to do something with RHEL to keep things stable in the long term but ... you can install a driver for the latest Radeon GPU and have it work with Windows XP from 10 years ago. You need the latest kernel and even then it won't probably work right in Linux.
With decent HW and SW support I think Linux could start to gain some market share but someone needs to start it all and invest and talk to the open source community , collaborate with them. What I have seen working are things like WebKit. It was open source at first , then it was embraced by Apple and now it's the basis of the world'd most successful browser ( Chrome ). For open source and Linux to really succeed it's likely that a company has to take it and develop it in-house while at the same time collaborating with interested open source developers, companies. Google did so with Android and it's a success no matter what people say, let's not forget that they did have to fork the kernel ...

This is very common hardware. The workaround for both is to install the vendor driver, which is fine for most of us, but not end-users.

I understand the limitations that the developers are facing, and recognize that they are working to get functionality as quickly as possible. However, there's tendency to concentrate on issues which, while important, are not user visible. No matter how great the internals are, if the basic visible functionality stays broken for years, end-users do not perceive improvement.

Comment

There's one problem no amount of money can solve: for most Open Source developers Linux is a playground, a thing they don't care beyond their aspirations, thus we have constantly broken features and API breakage every odd moon cycle. With such an attitude there's no way Linux will ever attract a big number of serious ISVs. Of course, people will be quick to point that already available Open Source software is enough for everyone - but that's a serious myopia. No, it's not enough, very very far from that.

most of the points in this article are because gnu/linux has a small market share :-P (no good consumer gfx-driver support, adobe flash, ...)
and why is it gnu/linux fault that there are patented technologies they cant implement?
also fontrendering? elementary os for example has much nicer look of the fonts than windows :-P

yes there are some problems, but they are either being worked on (wayland as replacement for xorg) or are not the fault of the developers (microsoft doesnt release a kick ass photo editing programm either but on foss-plattforms have to? :-P)

Comment

the desktops suck. kde is an unholy mess that gets in the way. gnome is too watered down. unity is like a fugly version of gnome.
the enterprise distros like rhel ship with broken opensource video drivers. this gives the impression that linux sucks at video, when the proprietary drivers work fine. this is not fit for an "enterprise" OS, where moving a window may cause a kernel panic. Only ship stable software. That means use vesa, until nuveau is fixed.
the GUI managment tools are very lacking. this basically caused Novell to fail at their plan to evangelize linux into offices. no "non-geeky" sysadmin is gonna want to edit goshdarned text files in vi every time he has to do some administration.
I think linux in offices in the next area where Red Hat and Attachmate needs to really focus. That means making OpenOffice something which does not cause me do driver a fork in my eye. http://tmrepository.com/trademarks/y...helastversion/http://tmrepository.com/trademarks/b...ceddeathmarch/